Regular price: $20.97
Buy Now with 1 Credit
Buy Now for $20.97
Mark Levin treats us to an excellent argument against the subjugation of America to nine Justices. Among his chief arguments are the following: Judges are no wiser than their fellow men; Judges should refrain from making policy decisions because they are exempt from the elective control; and Common Law is a perversion of Constitutional checks and balances.
Some reviewers are correct: You can have a good sense of this work before hand, but people, who have heard Levin's radio show, will be pleasantly surprised at the calm, rational discussion in the work. A professional reader adds as much, but this work is far from the incendiary provocation that Democrats assert. To them, the real crime is the shattering of the legal analysis (or lack of it) and holding of Roe in "Death by Privacy."
Would his thesis require releasing some 'rights' acquired in a 'Living Constitution?' Sure, but should we not expect our government to operate within its framework? After all, the Framers provided provisions and methods to amend the Constitution.
Of course, the Framers of the Constitution were far from a uniform body of people. (Alexander Hamilton sought a strengthened federal government and was deeply opposed by Thomas Jefferson.) However, Levin simply presents the words of Justices to prove his case. Doubt me? Take a look at the online retailers that provide previewable sections.
It’s a work that I think everyone should “read.” I would also recommend that all political junkies check out the following works:
Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton (only abridgement I’ve liked);
Bill Clinton’s My Life;
Jimmy Carter’s Our Endangered Values (Although you’ll want to read it because apparently chose to read it with a mouthful of marbles. I will never know how it won an audiobook award.);
Tom Delay’s No Retreat, No Surrender;
And John Stossel’s Give Me a Break.
9 of 9 people found this review helpful
First off, Levin is Rush Limbaugh's lawyer, so know what you're getting before you buy.
Beyond that, I think he does a good job defending his viewpoint that the originalist take on the Constitution is the proper one. If one looks at why Justice Ginsberg and Justice Thomas are almost always on opposite side of issues, this book does a good job of defining why Thomas takes the side he takes, and no consideration is made to defend Ginsberg.
Because Levin has such a problem with those who subscribe to the Living Constitution arguement, don't expect a defense of that at all.
Overall, I think it is good for what it is. Read it like you would a long editorial in a newspaper.
If you look at the law conservatively, this book my help you understand the legal defense of that view. If you are more liberal, this may at least help you understand why the other side sees things so differently.
25 of 28 people found this review helpful